inspect_pose_search_schema

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them by warning that an empty finalized_channels / is_finalized:false is expected and explains the exact trigger conditions (AddDefaultChannels() or PostEditChange()). That is precisely the kind of non-obvious operational context annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose, then the caveat, then the return shape — a sensible ordering with little waste. The return-field enumeration is long, but since there is no output schema it is load-bearing rather than padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema present, the description fully discharges that burden by enumerating every returned field, including the conditional note. Combined with annotations covering safety and the finalization caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single required parameter described at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents schema_path fully. The description adds nothing about path format beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline 3 case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Read-only walk of a UPoseSearchSchema's public fields + FinalizedChannels" gives a specific verb+resource and clearly marks it as the inspection counterpart to the many create_/set_/add_pose_search_schema_* siblings. It stops short of naming a specific sibling tool the way the highest-scoring examples do, so it is clear rather than definitive.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description never states when to reach for this tool versus the alternatives (e.g. inspect_pose_search_database, evaluate_pose_search_query, set_pose_search_schema_properties) or any preconditions such as needing a valid asset path first. The finalization note informs result interpretation, not tool selection, so no real usage guidance is present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.